In my defense, though, while I can see it being inflammatory it is definitely not offtopic. This is directly why CERN is being idled, and the article states it plainly:
"Europe's energy picture remains clouded by the war in Ukraine. Moscow's invasion of its neighbour have triggered sweeping sanctions from the West, led to a cut in energy supplies from Russia and stoked inflation.
On September 2, Russia indefinitely suspended natural gas flows through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, tightening the squeeze on Europe’s energy supplies. The ongoing economic battle between Moscow and Brussels has raised the prospects of recession and energy rationing in some of the continent’s wealthiest countries."
Trade is a great tool to mitigate and avoid conflicts like these, but the power balance was shifted too far into Russia’s favour here.
Energy policy should have included means of establishing sovereignty over energy sources. Shutting down nuclear reactors was probably not the best move. Russian gas was cheaper, until it wasn’t. In hindsight, keeping domestic sources available would have been wise.
Other policies to establish Russian economic dependence upon the West would have helped too. That said, only so much you can do with an autocrat.
The whole ordeal is ridiculous if you are not a dictator with fantasies about greatness.
I'm inclined to think that EU and USA's mistake was to turn blind eye to failing democracies because when a country is not a democracy its leader can do all kind of crazy stuff fuelled with nationalism or another ideology instead of trying to stay in power by providing prosperity. Maybe there must be a rule about offloading dependence when a country turns into less and less democratic nation with leaders who stay in power through means you don't have control in.
Surely sanctions bite and thats why Russia plays the energy card but it definitely would have bitten more or even deter the conflict if Putin was in power through proper governance.
That energy was for Europe for more important than these produce for Russia. Our leaders are to blame for going on with this imbalance of leverage for so long and not taking measures or backups despite the US warning us on several occasions that Europe is vulnerable to Russian exploitation due to this imbalance. Unfortunately for us, out leaders are Muppets asleep at the wheel.
Many times the climate change is half of the story, the other half is that EU couldn't be lavish on energy use even if it wanted.
You're saying it as if that came as a complete surprise to the EU leaders and EU population, that Putin's Russia was not a "real" democracy. When the US and the Eastern Europe was warning for decades that Russia cannot be trusted. Yet Germany turned a blind eye.
No I don't say that at all, read my comment again. I clearly say that they made a mistake with that.
Power of european leaders comes from european citizens, not from US (at least on paper).
Blame the european citizens, that they wanted to have good relations with Russia... no this does not work either.
Many people did not believe Putin would invade, or did not want to preempt him.
Now that we have the proof of treachery, working with/appeasing Russia became dangerous and only now we have a incontrovertible reason to disconnect from it. But before the invasion, it was not so clear that being on good terms with Russia was bad.
I appreciate that major infrastructure projects take a long time to build - but a gas-heavy Russia-dependent energy mix was the deliberate choice very recently.
That's like saying: "you can't blame the drug addict for choosing short term highs for a few years"
Another reason is instability in the Middle East and Iranian sanctions. Both also US choices that have shored up dependence on russian gas.
Right now, the quickest way to more gas would be a rapid deal with Iran that cuts right through US sanctions...
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/05/world/europe/germany-exte...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/25/trump-accuse...
that's a very naive way of looking at economic interdependence, even more naive than the view of politicians half a year ago that led Europe to the current energy crisis. How about european aerospace industry's need for titanium and aluminium? [1] There are several important resource markets where Russia has a significant share of the supply pie [2]. Metals and fertilizers to name a few. Politicians know that but are acting as if they don't, and the public has better start asking them for more than just knee-jerk reactions with economic sanctions that mostly hurt key european industries and numerous households that depend on these industries.
[1] > Airbus has said it relies on Russia for half its titanium needs, while a U.S. industry source said VSMPO-AVISMA provided a third of Boeing's requirements: https://www.reuters.com/business/importance-russian-titanium...
[2] https://www.oecd.org/ukraine-hub/policy-responses/the-supply...
Fuck wars and the old *** in government offices that declare them.
Wars are more often fought because people have differences that are actually legitimate, meaning reasonable people can at least see the point of view of each side.
Obviously all war is terrible, but at least usually you can see a reason for the war.
This one though? There was absolutely no reason for it.
NATO was not actually expanding. Russia has no chance of occupying Ukraine and keeping it. What are Russia's goals? No one can even say, not even Russia.
Ukraine got under control of a West-oriented government and many Ukrainians supported that. Military and economic ties grew. This telegraphed that Ukraine was on the path to be lost from the Russian sphere of influence (satellite states). Also it was an uncomfortable/dangerous for the Putin regime because it signaled to Belorussians and Russians that a different, west-oriented government system is possible.
Putin's popularity was falling before the war; nothing quite like war and war propaganda to neutralize discontent of powerful groups in Russia with the government; also works on the gullible part of population.
Lots of gas deposits and other natural resources in eastern Ukraine.
Belief in a quick "fait-accompli" win, resulting in expansion of Russian-controlled territory and gains in domestic popularity. Increase of power on the geopolitical scene, more power in relation to Europe.
Biden looked like a weak president who would not do much.
West did almost nothing in reaction to annexation of Crimea.
West did not want concede anything big to Putin during the talks. Probably rightly so.
Of course there was, Ukraine becoming a NATO member. Just read Putin's address [1] after the invasion started, it is spelled out in no uncertain terms. You may disagree whether this warrants are war but this does not change the fact that there is a reason and Russia consistently said so for decades.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/full-tran...
He has spelled it out before--he believes that Ukrainians are really Russians, and therefore Ukraine should not exist as a separate country because why divide a nation in two.
What's the end game? What's the goals of the war? How does an invasion, that has to end at some point, stop Ukraine from joining NATO?
Even if Ukraine looses, Russia has no ability to force them to do anything. Russia wins - and then what?
You are right, nothing will guarantee that they never become a NATO member, but for some time is a plausible goal. Even just being in an active conflict prevents a NATO membership unless the rules are changed which is what Crimea and eastern Ukraine achieved since 2014.
Saying that this particular instance of territorial expansion has a self-defense motivation is, I think, implausible given the history.
Realistically, Ukraine was left with the choice of slowly losing territory to Russia, or joining NATO.
When I first researched this after the invasion started, I arrived at Russia reacting but I am open to being proven wrong.
Ukraine was absolutely not becoming a NATO member. Before Februrary, nobody considered that realistic possibility for decades, at least.
Ironically, thanks to Putin's war, Ukrainian NATO membership is starting to look more plausible (and Swedish/Finnish membership is virtually assured).
I believe Swedish/Finnish membership has been officially accepted by NATO. All that remains is collecting the official ratifications from the rest of NATO. (Currently, 8 of the 30 member states have yet to ratify it.)
And, given the importance of Russian oil and gas in the post-covid recovery period, the predictable reduction in nuclear capacity in France and Germany, the plausible lack of support from EU population and German industry for a cold winter, Putin's aging, etc... It might just be that the timing felt "as good as it will ever be".
Also, being on the "initiative" side gives your more positive outcomes. Best case was a flash invasion of Kiyv with public support. Next best case, a flash invasion without public support. That didn't pan out, but their next option is not terrible : grab as much territory as possible in Spring and Summer, then... Wait it out. General Winter will give Russia a pretty nice seat at the négociation table when EU citizens finally bail out.
Now, it's possible that we europeans stand the cold (or maybe, FSM willing, that winter is _not_ cold), that US weapons work, and that Putin contends with "I keep Crimea and some water, you join NATO, Dombass stays neutral." Sadly, that looks like the "best" plausible outcome to me - but who knows...
Whether that will count as a good outcome really depends on what follows: chaos and civil war could be terrible; a short caretaker government followed by the election of Alexei Navalny might be the best possible result.
It is better than nothing, but not good.
In other words, a hot war between two nuclear powers. They're avoiding this scenario for good reasons.
It didn't force Russia to do anything.
EDIT: As a thought experiment entertain the idea of a partnership between Mexico and China where in exchange for economic support China gets a few military bases in northern Mexico, just a few thousand soldiers and tanks and maybe an airfield here or there. Take into account the recent US reaction in response to a partnership between the Solomon Islands and China [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/23/us-warns-solom...
Russia's security is guaranteed by nukes. Security definitely wasn't the reason why Russia has invaded Ukraine.
I am not qualified to judge the situation with Finnland, but not all neighbors are necessarily equal. Things like geography, for example, might play a role and Finnland in, Ukraine out might be more desirable than Ukraine in, Finnland out.
NATO members are NATO members, attacking them after they've joined NATO an orginisation basically created to fight Russia would mean you go to war with all NATO members.
Russia's preference methodogly of defence is creating distance. With Ukraine, NATO would have been extremely close to Moscow. Finland is further away but they're still not happy about it.
NATO expanding into that region was well known to be something that would threaten Russia, since it was founded to fight Russia, to the point Joe Biden said decades ago[1], that Russia expanding into that region would cause conflicts.
[1] https://multipolarista.com/2022/03/08/biden-nato-expansion-r...
I think it is fair to assume that in general the USA prefers Ukraine in NATO over a neutral Ukraine and that over one oriented towards Russia. In NATO there are at least some countries that preferred Ukraine remaining neutral. Even if everyone always says that it is a sovereign decision that does not preclude them from at least having preferences. But there is at least some evidence for outside influence to push Ukraine into a certain direction which goes beyond just having a preference.
I did a bit of reading yesterday but I have not yet found anything I consider strong enough to support my Russia reacted point of view. At least at this specific point in time, in general I still have no reason to doubt that a NATO membership was the desired outcome. So currently I really tend towards I got this wrong and I am mostly held back only because I looked into all this in quite some detail after the invasion started and that seems like a mistake I should not have made.
- 1990 - 2000: whether Ukraine had a sovereign right to join military blocs in the first place and how Zelensky's rhetoric on the matter contributed to Moscow's decision making. My past comments regarding the issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32299159
- 2011-2014: pre-cursory events to the successful armed coup against the legitimate sitting president in early 2014: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31763329
- late 2013 - early 2014: U.S. officals' unofficial position that they themselves summarized as "Fuck the EU". Media coverage: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/07/eu-us-di... and the full version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YctPO-k7ZlM
- ~8 years of what could be best characterised as a civil war between two sides of the same country backed by two different world powers. A period of forming of Azov Battalion out of nationalistic elements of the divided society (long twitter thread): https://twitter.com/camaradabruno/status/1499781846682505220
- 2021: UK's making a show of support for Ukraine in Black Sea near Crimea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Black_Sea_incident
- June 2021: Boris Johnson says HMS Defender’s deployment ‘wholly appropriate’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFWM7s2I52g
- Late November 2021: red lines are officially outlined, Crimea status is non-negotiable: https://www.reuters.com/markets/stocks/putin-warns-russia-wi...
- December 2021 Putin asks (demands) for concrete legal guarantees that would allow to prevent a conflict from escalating into a hot phase: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-...
- Early 2022: “Do you realize that if Ukraine joins NATO and decides to take Crimea back through military means, the European countries will automatically get drawn into a military conflict with Russia?” Putin said. “Of course, NATO’s united potential and that of Russia are incomparable.”: https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/putin-says-ukraine-membershi...
By that point, Ukraine no longer trusted that Russia would respect its sovereignty and Russia no longer trusted that U Ukraine would remain neutral with NATO.
There was no compulsion involved in Russia invading their neighbors.
Then came Russia's statements at the time of the color revolution. (No, I don't recall specific statements - that was eight or nine years ago.)
Then came the invasion of the "little green men". Russia said it was an internal thing, that Russia was not involved. Ukraine knows better.
Was that not enough for Ukraine, as early as 2013, to be looking for alliances to help their defense?
But for every move they made, Russia felt threatened by NATO. And so Russia responded by threatening Ukraine even more (mostly verbally, until 2022). But the bigger the threats that Russia uttered, the more Ukraine sought to strengthen ties to the west. This was now a positive feedback loop. It doesn't matter if one side was "right", it doesn't matter who made the first move, Russia's reactions were driving Ukraine more firmly into the camp of the west.
Since the invasion, Russia's comments have been jaw-dropping. "Ukraine has no independent existence." They threatened Finland for joining NATO. (Why do they think Finland might see the need to join NATO, after decades of non-alignment?) They threatened Poland for being a transit point for weapons flowing into Ukraine. They talked about re-creating the USSR or the Russian Empire or some big thing from the past that had a bigger land footprint. They talked about already being at war with NATO. Do they think that people don't listen to this? That they don't react? That the reaction is going to be to bow down to Russia's diktat? People (not just Ukraine) are scrambling, either toward Russia or away. Belarus is scrambling toward (Russia having kept Lukashenka in power might have something to do with that). Uzbekistan and maybe Kazakhstan are moving toward Russia. Everyone else is scrambling away, trying to find allies big enough to deter Russia from attacking them.
(Now, in fairness, since the invasion Russia has been running wartime propaganda, so of course their rhetoric has hardened. That doesn't convince their neighbors that Russia wants to live with them in peace, though.)
So, yeah. It's not just one threat. It's the whole pattern of Russia's words and actions over the last decade or two.
But I do not want to get stuck in the details of the actual events now because as you point out there is a more fundamental issue independent of the actual events. And I almost completely agree with the way you describe it as an unstable situation with positive feedback. Not sure if you wanted to say that this feedback loop formed in 2014, but if, then I would disagree. This cycle existed essentially since the end of the Soviet Union - Ukraine moves towards NATO, threats or actions in opposition, more incentive to seek NATO membership. Rinse and repeat. The specific events of course change but it is always the same cycle.
It doesn't matter if one side was "right", it doesn't matter who made the first move, Russia's reactions were driving Ukraine more firmly into the camp of the west.
With the first part I agree, but the second one is onesided. This is only one of the links in the cycle but in the same way any move towards NATO forces Russia to up their threats or even take action. And in that link it is not only the actions of Ukraine that matter but also outside actions. For example the USA wanting to support specific political groups in Ukraine in 2014 is also something that fuels the cycle as it may also move Ukraine closer to a NATO membership.
Ignoring everything after the war started because we are talking about how it started, it seems to me that everything you mentioned is related to the NATO issue, isn't it? I did some reading on the history of Ukraine Russia relations and I would say all things considered they got along pretty okay besides the NATO membership issue. Crimea is probably the biggest friction point but even there the longterm leases look like an acceptable compromise.
And let me return once more to the cycle which should have been broken long ago and must be broken at some point to achieve stability. Where can it be broken? Convince Russia that NATO in Ukraine is not a threat. Not going to happen any time soon just as a Chinese presence in Mexico would not be acceptable to the USA. A long time ago directly after the end of the Cold War this might have been possible with Russia itself becoming a NATO member. And obviously Ukraine remaining neutral or at most having only a special membership in NATO like Norway with no foreign assets on its territory.
Both have only become harder with the war and beyond that you either need radical changes like disappearing countries or become really creative. I think someone actually pointed some non-obviouse direction out to me but unfortunately I do not remember.
No, I don't think so. Russia intervened in Belarus to keep Lukashenka (sp) in power, against the will of the people. I don't think the people were asking for Belarus to join NATO, though. So I think that Russia has more "red lines" than NATO. A color revolution and/or a real democracy anywhere in the former USSR is a red line, at least while Putin is in power. (Because Putin very deeply fears a color revolution in Russia.)
And I think that's the deeper point. These aren't Russia's red lines; they're Putin's. And Putin may develop other things that become "red lines", because the bottom line is "anything that Putin feels threatened by". That's not a reasonable expectation to place on other nations. Ukraine and Belarus are not Putin's playthings, nor his colonies. "Don't do anything Putin doesn't like" is not something that independent nations have to play along with.
Sovereignty does not mean you can do whatever you want. Why do the USA and Israel try to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, are they not a sovereign state? Why invade Afghanistan, is hosting terrorists not something sovereign state can do if they want? You can of course maintain that sovereignty grants you the right to do whatever you want inside your territory, but then you also have to admit that not only the evil Russians are violating rights left and right.
However, NATO expansion does not give Russia a right to attack a sovereign country and attack civilian population centers with no regard to human life. Russia has been an aggressor in this. No matter where our political sympathies lie, we have to call a spade a spade. Russia started this war.
[1]: https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_...